Assessment of helmet-mounted HUD symbology referencing systems


  1. Herdman, C.M.
Corporate Authors
Defence and Civil Inst of Environmental Medicine, Downsview ONT (CAN);Human Factors Consulting, Ottawa ONT (CAN)
The TTCP Technical Panel 2 (TP2) developed a HUD symbology set using a "mixed" referencing system in which symbols portraying spatial analogue information are aircraft or world referenced, whereas non-spatial symbols are head referenced. One potential advantage to having non-spatial symbols referenced to head position is that critical flight and power information can be made available to the pilot even when the pilot's gaze is directed to the side of the aircraft, such as during sidestep referencing system. For example, one potential problem is that depending on moment-to-moment positioning of the head, one or more of the head referenced symbols may overlap with the aircraft referenced symbols. This may create intolerable perceptual/cognitive confusion and high mental workload. There were two objectives of the present research. The first objective was to contrast the effectiveness of the TP2 mixed frames of reference against an aircraft and a fully head-referenced configuration. To do this, two ADS33-type tasks were used: formation flight and sidestep. The formation flight results showed that there was undifferentiated performance across the aircraft, mixed, and head FORs. The sidestep results showed an advantage for the mixed and head FORs over the aircraft FOR in two primary performance measures: maintaining heading and altitude. TRUNCATED
Military symbology;Military symbols;Aircraft personnel;Cockpit design;Human engineering;Symbology;Frame of Reference (FOR);ADS33;Attention;Aviation displays;HUD;HMD
Report Number
DCIEM-CR-2000-126 — Contractor Report
Date of publication
30 Mar 2000
Number of Pages
Hardcopy;Document Image stored on Optical Disk

Permanent link

Document 1 of 1

Date modified: